MR DEVERELL IN REPLY TO MR GOODBEHERE.

Feilding Star, Volume XIV, Issue 26, 18 August 1892, Page 2

MR DEVERELL IN REPLY TO MR GOODBEHERE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR. ( Sir,— lv a late issue attention is drawn i to a letter of mine ou Protection by M > Mr Goodbehere. I wonder, from the ' tone of his letter, whether he is a lawyor, , lor it would seem to indicate such on this vital question. With all due differ- ■> euce to his suggestions I will decline it j with thanks. It would seem to be his . hobby to underestimate others knowledge j of political economy to some possibly as well read as himself on such topics, I think he should open his mind to new idoas, j aud not cliug to so many of the Barnacles of Freetrade. A great " hue and cry " prevails oyer it at the present day. Many do not enquire as to the reason of its inception before giving it proper notice, for many drink in ideas concerning it, and are as equally unable to do justice to its concerns, but yet uphold its principles aud thus do injustice to their better ] knowledge, instead of exercising their ] own faculties and common sense, and so , remain out of touch with the times and age we liye in. I would, in some mat- , ters, prefer experience and head know- ] ledge to book lore. Mr Goodbehere re- , minds one of a chieftaiu of a castle who throws out a bastion against what he , imagines to be a foreign foe, who would < attempt to assail it and demolish it. , Don Quixotic- tike, the drift of his argu- { tnont is that older or better men aro to , be found to do more ample justice to such , a matter than Mr Chamberlain or myself, , forgetting that his authorities are only men , of similar capacities to ourselves, and not | bearing in mind that on matters of this , sort a very high degree of knowledge can , be brought to bear. Many other men indulge in the same strain and endeavour , to shuffle off argument and responsibility. | The Judge Edwards case affords a case . in point. If some ineu were to express ] an opinion against the right of such and , had to give an opiuion of tnat judge's ( title to office as regards a legal aspect, it would be treated with contempt, for such men, they say are more qualified to decide such than laymen, which simply means that some men will not acknowledge others to know more than themselves, or, if they do, they admit the former are supposed to know. Like a man who could not get a pair of boots to fit him and.ex pected to be measured for them, ou beiug told that it would cost half a crown extra he retorted, "But you are supposed to measure me." He was nonplused at there being no supposing of the sort. Mr Goodbehere, it would seem, does uot give any pronounced opinion, and possibly he entert'iius the opinion, judging from the heading of his letter, that the more people can be banded together m voluntary organisations created and administered by themselves for the protection of their own interests, the better for this world. Not for their own only but for those of every section of the community which one must presume to pave the way to universal protection. To expand his ideas iv this direction I would ask Mr Goodbehere to peruse a copy of " Howell's Conflicts of Capital and Labour" and progress of such in their political, social, economical, aud industrial aspects. I don't think I can do bettor than recommend him to the scriptural injunction of St Paul's, "To prove all things ; hold fast that which is good." There are some men like stones. Some are capable of a high degree of polish whilst others are not, and all the polishing in the world would not have the desired effect, uot even till the crack of doom, while others require to have every thing hammered on their owu anvil. I am, etc., John Deverell.